Chickens that go insane...wait what?

[Syntho-sis]

http://www.chooseveg.com/animal-cruelty.asp?gclid=CIrS89aL-ZwCFU8M2godJgmJaQ

 

Now before I present my argument on this, I want you to watch this video.

 

Do you agree with what the creators have intended to claim?

 

Yay or Nay? And why?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Since there seems to be no early takers I will propose my case against the agenda behind the video:

 

Which is encouragement of people to practice vegetarianism solely on the basis that cruelty and pain are experienced by the animals used for meat production. And that somehow eating meat is morally wrong. There was also a statement on the website that suggested that compassionate people choose not to eat meat.

 

I see this as a fallacy in that the only alternative presented in the video and on the website to consumption of meat is vegetarianism. This is a false Dichotomy.

 

I'm assuming there are quite a few people on here who disagree with my perspective.

 

For those of you who do disagree I challenge you. If you are able to present a reasonable amount of evidence that meat production is a cruel and sinister affair I will stop eating meat immediately.

 

This is one topic in which I am well-versed, so it will be a challenge indeed.

 

Any takers?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Every time we eat, we are making a powerful choice that has profound consequences on the lives of animals. At each meal, we make a decision between supporting cruelty or living compassionately.

 

Suggestion of non-compassion on the consumer's part. A statement which is not supported by evidence.

 

Also a false dichotomy.

[ydoaPs]

It depends on what kind of meat. Chickens, for example, lack a neocortex and are thus unable to suffer in any appreciable way.

[Syntho-sis]

It depends on what kind of meat. Chickens, for example, lack a neocortex and are thus unable to suffer in any appreciable way.

 

Well the makers of the video have clumped all the varying species that are involved in meat production into the all encompassing term of "animals."

 

and feel that...

 

Like us, chickens form friendships and strong family ties. They love their young and mourn the loss of loved ones.

Source: http://www.chooseveg.com/chickens-turkeys.asp

 

Well apparently chickens are capable of emotions as well.

 

This is why I do not take vegetarians and vegans seriously when it comes to this topic.

[john5746]

 

Which is encouragement of people to practice vegetarianism solely on the basis that cruelty and pain are experienced by the animals used for meat production. And that somehow eating meat is morally wrong. There was also a statement on the website that suggested that compassionate people choose not to eat meat.

 

I somewhat agree with you in that farm animals can have better lives than animals found in the wild. It would be possible for someone to obtain or grow their own meat and avoid the industrial mess.

 

I do think the basic argument that getting our energy from the lowest level of the chain(i.e the sun) possible would be the best for all life and the earth. But, if it is impractical to achieve this in some areas, then eating meat can be the morally right thing to do - such as eating rats.

[A Tripolation]

First of all, I'd like to say that, as someone who grew up on a farm, we small farmers NEVER treat our animals so horribly. Our cattle probably did have a much better life than a lot of the people in the world. They always had food and water and as much as they could want. They had good shelter and were treated incredibly well. This goes for EVERY small farm that I have ever visited.

 

And yes, chickens are horribly packed in those places...I've seen it myself. That's why I only try and eat "free-range chicken" because, whether they feel pain or not, it is still wrong to treat a living animal so horribly.

 

But they DON'T "feed antiobiotics to promote unnatural growth". What they do (at least in the feedlots for cattle) is put a growth horomone in tabular form in the cow's ear. Antibiotics are only used when necessary, as they are ungodly expensive.

And the cattle are supposed to be stunned before they are slaughtered. How many are, I cannot say. But to anyone that has seen "No Country for Old Men" the weapon Javier Bardem uses is how they are supposed to be killed. It's called a captive-bolt pistol.

 

And I plain refuse to eat veal because of what it is.

 

Animals are never supposed to be treated as cruelly as those videos show, though sadly, I have seen it myself at the stockyards I went to with my father.

[AzurePhoenix]

I have to agree with A Trip on all counts. One point being that regardless of its capacity to suffer enough to satisfy the requirements of some people, unless some explicit purpose is being served such as for the sake of medical experimentation or the killing itself (I'm happily pro-carnivorism) etc, I have the personal conviction that living things deserve at least a modicum of decency, and shouldnt be left to rot their entire lives under such abhorrent conditions for the sake of value. And growing up in Arizona, I've had lots of exposure to free range beef cattle, living fairly decent lives as compared to dairy cows penned up and packed together in barren corrals under hot tin shades. I'd much rather be cow of the meat industry if i had to choose between the two.

 

I don't think vegetarianism is the right way, particularly since buying meat from free-range sources increases competition against factory-farmers, which i would imagine is a more effective tactic than simple boycotting. Plus, I'm largely practical. We evolved omnivorous. Animals eat other animals and animals are eaten. That's nature. Nature = red in tooth and claw... and beak. It's extended cruelty I don't like.

Edited September 17, 2009 by AzurePhoenix

[The Bear's Key]

Do you agree with what the creators have intended to claim?

The vid has too many parts we're likely not familiar enough on and need to research for ourselves a lot more before agreeing or disagreeing. However, I only saw that the video producers had some technically untrue assumptions.

 

For example, not all meat industries do what they portrayed. And the video focused on cruelty, but it's the least of the problems with super-commercial meats.

 

I for one have no problem eating meat, or with the slaughter/killing of animals for our eating satisfaction. And I don't see the traditional slaughterers as any less compassionate than the rest of us.

 

However, so many other things are seriously wrong at enough large-scale meat production businesses that I'd avoid everything but free-range and smaller productions done more by people with business ethics and/or common decency. Mostly avoiding it for my health and because their policies so often result in environmental disasters.

 

Which is encouragement of people to practice vegetarianism solely on the basis that cruelty and pain are experienced by the animals used for meat production.

Not by all.

 

The video producers became too gung-ho in the fight against those practices, and so didn't critically think out the argument enough. It's a simple case of the well-meaning acivist unintentionally poisoning their own well, instead of the usual opponents doing it.

 

Fact is you can eat meat while avoiding the offending sources, just at times it's more difficult -- especially when industry paints an open farm with lush grass and roaming cows under their product logo.

 

And that somehow eating meat is morally wrong.

Nowhere was that said on the video, nor could I find such throughout the website. No offense mate, however it being a topic in which you specifically claim to be well-versed, I hope you put more of a critical eye and in-depth analysis into the commercial meat practices.

 

There was also a statement on the website that suggested that compassionate people choose not to eat meat.

The only suggestive phrase I could find having the word is "compassionate cook". Yes, a bit suggestive and partially uninformed/wrong or biased, as they remain silent on alternative or traditional ways of meat-production. But it's a vegan website, so I'm hardly surprised.

 

And while I disagree with the veggies/greens only, it's never to the extent of telling vegans to switch to better raised meats. I'll present what I know and let them decide.

 

I see this as a fallacy in that the only alternative presented in the video and on the website to consumption of meat is vegetarianism.

Yes it's a fallacy. Agreed

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Would've been nice to have a choice of "yes and no. (Please explain)"

Edited September 18, 2009 by The Bear's Key
Consecutive posts merged.

[A Tripolation]

And what a fine option it would have been Bear's Key.

[Syntho-sis]

First of all, I'd like to say that, as someone who grew up on a farm, we small farmers NEVER treat our animals so horribly. Our cattle probably did have a much better life than a lot of the people in the world. They always had food and water and as much as they could want. They had good shelter and were treated incredibly well. This goes for EVERY small farm that I have ever visited..

 

I myself have lived on farms growing up, and have visited many small farms. I've witnessed firsthand how small farmers actually treat their animals. In the eyes of most farmers, the animal is money, and you treat your money well.

 

The website claims on free range

 

 

And yes, chickens are horribly packed in those places...I've seen it myself. That's why I only try and eat "free-range chicken" because, whether they feel pain or not, it is still wrong to treat a living animal so horribly.

 

But they DON'T "feed antiobiotics to promote unnatural growth". What they do (at least in the feedlots for cattle) is put a growth horomone in tabular form in the cow's ear. Antibiotics are only used when necessary, as they are ungodly expensive.

And the cattle are supposed to be stunned before they are slaughtered. How many are, I cannot say. But to anyone that has seen "No Country for Old Men" the weapon Javier Bardem uses is how they are supposed to be killed. It's called a captive-bolt pistol.

 

And I plain refuse to eat veal because of what it is.

 

Animals are never supposed to be treated as cruelly as those videos show, though sadly, I have seen it myself at the stockyards I went to with my father.

 

Animals should not be treated cruelly, but the depictions on the website and video far exaggerate what actually goes on.

 

For example: There is one seen in which two pigs hanging on some sort of apparatus have there throats slit I believe. It is made to appear that they are suffering because they are squirming as if in lots of pain. In actuality, most animals in this state are not experiencing pain at all, this is simply a reflexive response. The spinal cord is still active in this state, and is sending neurochemical impulses at a high rate. Thus you have the squirming.

 

Which does not necessarily mean pain.

[The Bear's Key]

I myself have lived on farms growing up, and have visited many small farms. I've witnessed firsthand how small farmers actually treat their animals. In the eyes of most farmers, the animal is money, and you treat your money well.

(Gigantically) large-scale, not the ones you grew up in or around.

 

The website claims on free range

They make some good points, but ultimately...they're biased against meat eating in any form, plus make claims on how animals feel about death which lack citations and so they might well be pulling it out of their asses.

 

However, who cares? I'm not for or against vegan philosophy. My own research into tracking ANY packaged food down to its source, and how exactly do those responsible slip into bed with government, has convinced me enough to seek real alternatives to that unsustainable/disastrous system.

 

I lived on a farm as well, and they plowed using mules, collected rainwater for drinking, and were organic simply either because they had no access to pesticides, or didn't care to use them. Yet we managed just fine on the 20 acres (or so) of land.

[Syntho-sis]

(Gigantically) large-scale, not the ones you grew up in or around.

 

 

They make some good points, but ultimately...they're biased against meat eating in any form, plus make claims on how animals feel about death which lack citations and so they might well be pulling it out of their asses.

 

However, who cares? I'm not for or against vegan philosophy. My own research into tracking ANY packaged food down to its source, and how exactly do those responsible slip into bed with government, has convinced me enough to seek real alternatives to that unsustainable/disastrous system.

 

I lived on a farm as well, and they plowed using mules, collected rainwater for drinking, and were organic simply either because they had no access to pesticides, or didn't care to use them. Yet we managed just fine on the 20 acres (or so) of land.

 

I just thought it was sad that such fallacious arguments were being used to further an agenda such as this.

 

Is there any rationale at all for deciding not to eat meat or use animal products?

 

There's been research into the diet of our descendants and it was found at the time our brain the developed the most, vast quantities of protein were being consumed.

 

It's been speculated that humanoids had more time to think since they weren't spending all their time foraging for veggies.